Search form

The U.N.’s Role in Post-War Iraq

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, echoing similar
calls from France and Germany, has declared that the United Nations
should have a “central role” in post-war Iraq. It is somewhat
ironic that Russia, France, and Germany — three countries that
wanted no part in the war — want to have a “central role” in the
post-war reconstruction. Many Americans have reacted to this
proposal with disdain, arguing essentially that, having left the
heavy lifting to the United States, these three countries are in no
position to demand a place at the peace table.

But while this reaction is understandable, the exclusion of
other countries from the rebuilding of Iraq may be
counter-productive. In planning for the peace, Americans should
welcome the involvement of other nations, including those nations
that did not contribute troops to the war effort, as a way of
sharing the financial burden, and the continued risks, of the
post-war occupation. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) had it right when
he declared at a recent Capitol Hill press conference that the
United States should share the “opportunity with the rest of the
world out of our own naked self-interest.”

Unfortunately, the involvement of the United Nations in the
rebuilding of Iraq is likely to be a double-edged sword for U.S.
policy makers. On the one hand, the international community at
large, and the United Nations in particular, must not be absolved
of its responsibility for post-war Iraq. For the 12 years since the
first Gulf War, many leaders in the U.N., including Secretary
General Kofi Annan, and the representatives of France, Germany, and
Russia, favored inspections to monitor Hussein’s weapons programs,
and punitive economic sanctions to pressure the regime.

We now know that this endeavor was deeply flawed because it was
dependent completely upon U.S. military force. Absent the threat of
military action, Saddam Hussein refused to obey the U.N. mandates.
Moral suasion and international opprobrium are meaningless to a man
who tortures his own people for sport. But the international
community must stop calling on the United States as a global
policeman, and the U.S. must stop answering the call.

The United States has footed the bill for an extensive troop
presence in the region since the outbreak of the first Gulf War in
1990. The military buildup to the current war was an additional
expense. Some estimates place the costs of keeping American forces
in the region at $20 billion a year. It is unfair that American
taxpayers should continue to shoulder these burdens. Other
countries could demonstrate their commitment to peace by sending
military and police forces to maintain order until elections can be
held, and by pledging financial support for the new Iraqi
government. On the other hand, recent experience in Kosovo and
Bosnia, where U.N. personnel have been stationed for several years,
suggests that U.N. involvement in Iraq is likely to slow the
rebuilding process. U.S. policymakers should avoid any
entanglements that would delay the creation of a new Iraqi
government, elected by the Iraqi people.

Iraq has a relatively high literacy rate, a functioning middle
class, and an infrastructure to support the rebuilding effort. Most
importantly, the country’s enormous oil wealth will attract private
firms willing to contribute to the rebuilding effort. If Iraqis
negotiate contracts with these firms, no one can rightly claim that
the military campaign against Saddam Hussein was all about
enriching American businesses. The most reasonable compromise is
for the U.N. to be involved in ways in which it already has
expertise. U.N. humanitarian personnel have begun to distribute
basic necessities in the country, and this can and should expand as
coalition forces tighten their control and crack down on
lawlessness. Similarly, U.N. election monitors have supervised
elections around the globe and U.N. supervision of elections in
Iraq, and certification of the election results, would lend
legitimacy to a fledgling government that is certain to be
criticized — rightly or wrongly — as a puppet of the United
States.

The Bush administration claimed that Saddam Hussein posed a
threat to the United States. His regime is destroyed. The threat,
therefore, is eliminated. The Bush administration should remain
focused on ending the military occupation and on turning the
government of Iraq over to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible.
If the member states of the United Nations can help, and if they
can do so on our timeline, we should let them. If not, we should
tell them to mind their own business.